Uber Is About to Face a Landmark Battle in Europe (fortune.com) 106
In a case which could affect other app-based startups, Uber will seek to convince Europe's top court next week that it is a digital service, not a transport company. The outcome could determine whether app-based startups should be exempt from strict laws meant for regular companies. From a report on Fortune:The European Commission is trying to boost e-commerce, a sector where the EU lags behind Asia and the United States, to drive economic growth and create jobs. The U.S. taxi app, which launched in Europe five years ago, has faced fierce opposition from regular taxi companies and some local authorities, who fear it creates unfair competition because it is not bound by strict local licensing and safety rules. Supporters however say rigid regulatory obligations protect incumbents and hinder the entry of digital startups which offer looser work arrangements to workers in the 28-country European Union looking for more flexibility, albeit without basic rights.
If this is the case, beward companies. (Score:1)
Paypal will be called a bank and have to obey laws.
Every tech company figures they're semi avoiding laws at least cuz it is new. The motto in tech ask for forgiveness, not ask for permission. If you limit yourself, you might not ever have a good idea to make billions. I've had many ideas that turned into multimillion or multibillion dollar companies, but I didn't do them myself because I didn't have a crew to do them with.
Um... so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you let people ignore laws because you're changing nomenclature then there is no law. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for that. As much fun as certain... generations have from doing everything via smartphone, taxi companies are Good For Society (tm). What if you can't use a smartphone? You need to call a taxi... but not if ride-shares (so called) have put them out of business. What if you're elderly? What if you have a neural disorder?
Completely aside from discrimination and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are arguing that ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis) should be suppressed because they are so much better for 98% of the population, but may make it harder for the other 2%?
So why not just throw away they rest of the outdated taxi regulations and let people call a number to request an Uber? I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige that 2% (in reality, it's way less than that - probably a fraction of a percent) in order to get government regulators off their backs.
I'm not arguing that at all (Score:4, Insightful)
If they're going to treat people like employees when it's to their advantage they're also going to treat them like employees when it's to the drivers advantage. People literally died for those protections. In China and South America they're still dying. WTF is wrong with you that you'd turn a blind eye to that?
Re: (Score:2)
What part of Uber is a ride share service?
What part of "ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis)" did you not get?
Actually, I TOTALLY AGREE that Uber is a transportation company and not a digital services company. My argument is that the current regulations on "transportation companies" are absurd.
I a not "pro Uber" per se - but I do agree some additional regulation is in order. But I also have several friends who are Uber drivers who are very happy with it and yet would never have been able to be taxi drivers du
Re: (Score:2)
Do these friends of yours havea a driver's license that allows them to operate a vehicle for hire?
Who cares, that's my point, duh.
Do they have mandatory inspections for safety and serviceability of their vehicles?
Yep they do, and I have felt safer in most Uber rides over many of the shitty, dirty cabs I have been a passenger in.
Do they carry insurance sufficient to cover their passengers in the case of an accident?
Absolutely. This was a done deal years ago welcome to the modern age...
Re: (Score:2)
Ride sharing should never be considered a job. You agree to carry a passenger who's going your way in exchange for some money to cover the gas. Diverting your route to pick up passengers then drive to their destination in exchange for a fee based on distance, that's the basic definition of taxi.
I can't believe I have to re-quote my post AGAIN... why can't you read it before replying?
What part of "ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis)" did you not get?
Of course it's a replacement for taxis. One that nearly all customers of taxis and Ubers are ecstatic over. Maybe the taxi companies could clean up their cars and find more drivers who don't drive like maniacs... you know, try to *compete*...
You're friends are happy now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't actually understand how Uber works, do you? Have you ever even used it?
Uber is paying way more than it needs to for it's drivers in order to establish itself. They're doing that with investor capital that will eventually dry up. If the necessary legal precedence is established by then expect your friends pay to be about 1/2 - 1/3 minimum wage
The rates for Uber vary based on demand in a specific area. So when there aren't enough drivers on the road, the rate goes up and more drivers get out there. When the rate goes down to where it's not worth it, some drivers stop.
Almost no Uber driver does it as their primary/full time job (I saw a stat that it was something like 90% of drivers have another job, and 70% have a full time job other than Uber). People use it to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's turning their back? I'm encouraging that the government allow Uber to let people call in and schedule rides. I think that would be a great service, and in the VAST majority of areas where that "2%" lives, would result in faster service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Um... so what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of COURSE it's about people in "certain areas". Te Urban areas are the only places this is even an issue. In the suburbs and even more the rural areas Uber is a godsend for those not having their own means of transportation.
Where do you live? Have you ever tried to get a cab in the semi-rural Midwest? I have. It's nigh-impossible, while getting an Uber still takes make 10-15 minutes since the driver doesn't have to be a part of a big taxi company.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are arguing that ride share services (which yes, let's admit it, are totally the new taxis) should be suppressed because they are so much better for 98% of the population, but may make it harder for the other 2%?
Largely we're not talking about Uber's customers, we're talking about Uber's employees.
...and yes, Uber's drivers are obviously Uber's employees.
When I buy a box on Amazon via their app, the employees that package and ship that box to me work under local labour laws. Uber needs to do
Re: (Score:2)
You need to call a taxi... but not if ride-shares (so called) have put them out of business.
The reason you can't use a phone to order an Uber, is because in many jurisdictions, that is illegal. Once the taxis are out of business, those laws can be repealed.
What if you're elderly? What if you have a neural disorder?
What if an elderly or disabled person needs a ride on a busy rainy night, but there are no rides available because of government imposed fix prices that don't incentivize additional drivers to go out and provide rides?
What if that elderly person needs to eat? Should we require grocery stores to be licensed, and provide food at fixed prices to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You need to call a taxi... but not if ride-shares (so called) have put them out of business.
The reason you can't use a phone to order an Uber, is because in many jurisdictions, that is illegal. Once the taxis are out of business, those laws can be repealed.
That doesn't guarantee it will happen though. Running phone lines is expensive, and that eats into profit. Uber's business model is one of cherry-picking profitable business, not of getting full coverage; whereas one of the main points about regulated taxi and private hire car services is that you can mandate that a license holder has to cater for different classes of passenger. That means that a medium-to-large taxi firm must have a certain percentage of accessible vehicles, and now practically all black c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in some cases it was because people were being abused. In many other cases it's because lobbyists of the oligopolies want to prevent competition or local governments can't figure out how to maximize their taxes on it.
If you disagree, please explain how Uber has seriously harmed anyone other than the outdated Taxi companies. It's frankly absurd that a person would need government permission just to accept money to drive another person where they want to go.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of Taxis. Too few and people don't get a proper service. Too many and there's congestion. Too many empty taxis waiting round.
Free marketers would say that the market would find the right level. But that's religion, not reality. A free market finds A level, not necessarily the right level. A free market would normally end up with too many taxis, and poverty wages as they all compete for few jobs at low rates. You can see that happening in parts of the
Re: (Score:1)
Would you say the job requirements and barriers for being an engineer is the same as a taxi driver? (All engineering jokes aside.)
Of course not.
Would you believe that one is self limiting by nature and one is not and need external limiting?
Nope, I don't believe that. I think they're only different in degree, not in kind. If you gave out Engineer Medallions and limited the supply, I think engineer salaries would skyrocket and it would be really, really hard to hire engineers. The only real difference between the two is it takes longer to get trained to be an engineer versus becoming a reasonable driver so the RC constant is larger. Although, now that I think of it, the barrier to entry for software development is a $500 laptop, i
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of grocery stores, computer programmers, car makers, etc.
If we let anyone open a grocery store, program computers, etc., then there will be too many of each and everyone will be in poverty.
What? Taxis are different? How?
Grocery stores typically require trading licenses issued by municipal authorities, and they are most assuredly issued based on local need and demand.
The difference with computer programmers is that you don't accumulate much experience as a taxi driver after a year or two on the road, so you don't become more valuable.
Car makers, on the other hand, are heavily regulated, and you have to meet stringent safety regulations to sell what you make. There may not be direct regulation for numbers of car makers or
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of Taxis.
No, I don't think there is. The number is very fluid. It changes from minute to minute and from location to location, and from person to person. I personally have no idea how you'd go about figuring it out. I don't even know how you'd decide one value is better than another because that's a judgement call, not an objective fact.
Free marketers would say that the market would find the right level. But that's religion, not reality. A free market finds A level, not necessarily the right level.
It's not religion any more than believing a wise and well informed third party can deduce the right value.
Somehow we need to come up with the number of available taxis right now. I'm
Re: (Score:2)
No surprise that a free marketer would comment to say what I suggested they would say. Confident that their religion is right.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet his argument is well thought out and totally reasonable. while your argument provides almost no actual evidence supporting your opinion. Who's the one pushing the "religion" in this case?
I'd argue that someone magically believing that setting BOTH arbitrary limits on supply AND pricing is the one bowing to a fake religion...
Re: (Score:2)
...nor 2 free market religionists.
Re: (Score:2)
When you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Is ad hominem all you have?
Re: (Score:2)
I already made the argument in the opening post, including predicting disagreement by free marketers. There's nothing more to say other than what I already did.
Re: (Score:2)
Hilarious. Your original argument WAS THE DEFINITION OF FREE MARKET.
There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of Taxis. Too few and people don't get a proper service. Too many and there's congestion. Too many empty taxis waiting round.
And then, this gem: A free market finds A level, not necessarily the right level.
WTF is the "right" level, then? You clearly have no fucking clue, and have not cited a SINGLE source or answered any questions outside your little brain to the contrary...
Re: (Score:2)
The right level is one that serves the needs of the city; enough for the passengers, not so many that they cause congestion; not so many that the drivers are impoverished. These problems happen in cities where there is no taxi regulation.
The random level that a free market finds doesn't serve anyone except possibly by chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Free marketers would say that the market would find the right level. But that's religion, not reality. A free market finds A level, not necessarily the right level.
It's not religion any more than believing a wise and well informed third party can deduce the right value.
It's less of a faith position to say that a well-informed third party can deduce value than to claim that a mass of uninformed individuals can.
I once visited the famous tourist beauty spot of Biarritz in France. Beauty spot? It is ugly as all sin. The problem is that the mass of tourists have destroyed everything. You have clifftop walks which originally had planned paths, set out in concrete. Tourists didn't want to follow those paths, and walked across the grass. The authorities in Biarritz apparently too
Re: (Score:1)
It's not religion any more than believing a wise and well informed third party can deduce the right value.
It's less of a faith position to say that a well-informed third party can deduce value than to claim that a mass of uninformed individuals can.
Well, that's a difference in judgement. I don't think either of us can prove that point. All I can say is I believe there are way, way more cases where depending on individuals to jointly, through a free market, can come to a decision on an optimal balance than there cases where a central authority will come to a better answer.
I once visited the famous tourist beauty spot of Biarritz in France. Beauty spot? It is ugly as all sin. The problem is that the mass of tourists have destroyed everything. You have clifftop walks which originally had planned paths, set out in concrete. Tourists didn't want to follow those paths, and walked across the grass. The authorities in Biarritz apparently took the view that you couldn't argue with the crowd, and they reinforced the new paths the tourist created.
That's a shame. I don't know anything about Bairritz but I've got to wonder who was making the decisions and what their incentives are. If the decisions where to put paths was made by
Re: (Score:2)
The concept of the tragedy of the commons has been used to justify private land ownership, by claiming that the proprietor has a long-term stake in maintaining the quality of the land, but the result is quite the opposite -- private o
Re: (Score:1)
No, I don't think there is.
I thought about this a little this morning and I was being a little arrogant myself. Of course we can have a reasonable discussion about this.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reasonable argument that there's a right number of Taxis. Too few and people don't get a proper service. Too many and there's congestion. Too many empty taxis waiting round.
No,. empty taxis makes no profit. This one of the business that can self balance, too many drivers drives drivers out of business, naturally..
Re: (Score:1)
these laws and regulations exist for a reason
Sometimes for a good reason, but often for bad reasons, like cronyism and corruption. Do we really need to arrest people for painting toenails without a license?
Can you point to any data that indicates that Uber is less safe or "worse" in some measurable way, compared to regulated taxis? If not, then what is the "reason" for the laws and regulations inhibiting competition and pushing up prices?
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
If it looks like a shotgun, and operates like a shotgun, then you can use it to shoot a duck. Then the duck won't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
My wife has had lymph nodes out and if she goes to a salon and they use cuticle pushers incorrectly and break her skin she could be in deep trouble. So yes, there needs to be a minimum ounce of safety even for salons.
OK, you just hit on a really deep and subtle point.
Absolutely, yes, there needs to be some quality standard for manicurists, drivers, engineers, and nuclear power plant operators.
Now, here's the hard question: how best to arrange that? The safety standards aren't free. If they were, I'd ask that each manicurist have an MD so they can properly treat your wife should she get an open wound. So, clearly to me, we can't have all the safety precautions we can imagine. So the question is, what's the right level? A
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Usually it's going to be a licensing board. It's to easy for a business to fake credentials without one.
The problem with licensing boards is they have a conflict of interest. My understanding is it is quite common for licensing boards to be composed of or heavily influenced by members of the profession (look up regulatory capture [wikipedia.org]).
So, what are the interests of the board? To protect their businesses. They do this in two major ways. One is to protect the business reputation. That's what we, the consumers, want. I want the board to give me assurance the practitioners are good, honest, and qualified, and that bad
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I thought you meant a government sponsored licensing board. Must be regulated by government. No other way. And yes I know they can become corrupt to but so does anyone.
I don't think it matters if it's a government or industry sponsored licensing board. In both cases, companies have a strong interest in lobbying and influencing the board while customers have a much weaker interest in making sure proceeding are all above board. Look up the history of the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was the first agency intended to regulate railroads, yet within a few years, the railroads had captured the board and used it to drive competitors out of the market. The same story plays o
Re: (Score:2)
The hot answer these days for things like manicurists is reputation. Don't go to a salon with a 1.5 star rating on Yelp. That's how ride sharing and home sharing services also regulate their quality. And companies are really, really serious about maintaining their reputation.
What happens when your top manicurist decides she's had enough of being the employee and opens her own salon, taking the best people on your staff with her? You get in new manicurists that can do the work, that's what! Ideally you'd be protecting your reputation by only hiring the best, but a reputation is no use whatsoever if you can't sell your services.
It's the same in restaurants. All the reviews tell you how great the chef was, how clever the head chef's menu is, and those reviews don't disappear the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Um... so what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and it's not to put a stop to everybody's fun. It's because people were being abused.
- no, that's irrelevant, it's not because 'people were abused', many people are abused in many ways and this includes abuse by government. This is because governments are made of politicians that buy power from the mob with giving out promises and 'free' stuff. Governments should not be regulating any businesses at all for any purpose. There shouldn't be any income or property related taxes either. Government should only spend what they can get in taxes and shouldn't run deficits. Governments should s
Re:If this is the case, beward companies. (Score:5, Informative)
eBay is an auction site and the sellers and buyers do have to abide by local laws. Like in Germany, eBay has had to remove Nazi stuff listed for sale, because it is illegal to sell those in Germany. eBay has also had to remove listings because they've violated laws.
Paypal IS actually a bank in the EU.
Anyhow, if the EU wants more e-commerce, why not start with something straightforward like selling of merchandise? Or even working on copyright and IP laws which would allow the sale of music, tv shows and movies throughout the EU without being country specific? That would seem to be the low-hanging fruit blocking EU-wide e-commerce.
Going after someone like Uber is going to be hard. Because there are some laws you want them to follow (e.g., non-discrimination). And depending on the country, if a taxi driver doesn't want to carry a fare that's hired them, they're forced to call another taxi AND THEN wait with the fare until the replacement taxi arrives. (This is so the refusing taxi can't go and get someone more lucrative in the meantime, as well as if it's bad weather, the fare doesn't have to wait in the weather).
Re: (Score:2)
Anyhow, if the EU wants more e-commerce, why not start with something straightforward like selling of merchandise? Or even working on copyright and IP laws which would allow the sale of music, tv shows and movies throughout the EU without being country specific? That would seem to be the low-hanging fruit blocking EU-wide e-commerce.
Nothing is blocking of that, except companies don't want to do it. If the EU wants to fix this (and they do), then need to make restrictive laws making a lot of standard practices and long term country-specific distribution contracts illegal.
Anyway. Note the EU isn't targetting Uber, Uber is already illegal under existing rules, and just being sued for breaking the law. No laws were changed, unlike in the US where they intervened and legalized Uber's organized crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Paypal - Already done. Many governments have already said they're a bank and have to abide by banking rules.
Uber isn't running a new form of disruptive technology. They're running an old fashioned black market cab company. This may be legal in some areas (I.E. in the UK) b
Re: (Score:2)
Same as if I started selling beer on a street corner and called it "beverage sharing", I cant use an app to get around the fact I'm operating an unlicensed bar.
cf. Napster
Re: (Score:2)
Reverting to 19th-century safety standards, though, might not be a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microjobs are part of the economy of the future, and letting 19th century-style job laws stand in their way will only stifle the economy.
Correct. But the solution is to replace the 19th-century-style job laws with 21st-century-style ones, not medieval-style economic serfdom.
Disclaimer: I'm 34, have never had a job and am a virgin.
These statements appear mutually contradictory. If you're a 34-year-old virgin, you must have at least had a hand job, even if you gave it to yourself.
We'll all be "contractors" soon. (Score:3, Insightful)
Supporters however say rigid regulatory obligations protect incumbents and hinder the entry of digital startups which offer looser work arrangements to workers in the 28-country European Union looking for more flexibility, albeit without basic rights.
See, these folks are spinning it as an opportunity for folks - "be your own boss!", "Be an entrepreneur!", etc ....
But they still rule your work. You still take on the business risk but aren't compensated for it. That's the trend - to push market and other business risks onto the worker - as well as the tax liability and hassle - and not compensating the worker for it.
A 25% commission and booking fee on top of that is way too steep for what they (Uber) do. They have no risk and very little expense while the drivers deal with the headaches of owning the capital equipment and taxes and whatnot. It's great that by becoming an Uber driver, you can skate around taxi regulations, but never the less, it's a bad deal. Uber just supplies an app and a payment system (BFD), but the drivers are the ones who are supplying the real service and capital equipment. I
Re: (Score:3)
"A 25% commission and booking fee on top of that is way too steep for what they (Uber) do."
right, and some even call it the 'sharing economy'.
Re:We'll all be "contractors" soon. (Score:4, Funny)
But it is a "sharing economy".
Drivers share their income with Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
The traditional fee for a sitting-on-his-arse middleman is 2.5%. Uber demanding 10 times that is almost racketeering and begets a question: Why doesn't someone start a ride-sharing business that provides security checks, carriage insurance and online 'training' for their contracted workers? The business could actually provide a service and still make a tidy profit.
If people are so sick of Facebook's constant invasion of privacy, why don't they set up another social network.
Oh, they did?
Oh, they went out of business?
Uber's greatest strength is the same as Facebook's: coverage. Lyft is mySpace to Uber's Facebook -- i.e. trundling on getting slowly eclipsed until the day when nobody is actually sure whether it still exists or not [checks myspace.com -- oh yes, it still exists]. The dozens of other social networking sites whose names you forget are equivalent to the doze
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is about rights (Score:2)
Do individuals have the right to pick up people and offer them a ride for a fee, or does the government have the right do define a class of people with that right.
There is also the question of does the consumer have the right to decide what is in their best interest or does the government ?
Re: (Score:1)
In the US (yes I know the story is about the EU) Individuals have very limited rights to do anything for a fee without registering a business. Actual companies with employees are even more limited.
Re Uber, if there are laws regulating who can offer taxi services wherever they are picking the person up they have to follow those laws like any other company.
If you don't like a law and choose to ignore it that is your choice but don't act surprised when police show up.
Re: (Score:2)
Do individuals have the right to pick up people and offer them a ride for a fee, or does the government have the right do define a class of people with that right.
The former.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough
How does uber impact this ? Far as I can see they have to track their drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Do individuals have the right to pick up people and offer them a ride for a fee
Do you have the right to perform tax-evading work and willfully break government safety regulations? Sure I repair your electric outlets for a "shared repair-work" fee, and I don't need to stick to housing or education regulation because I am selling my service through an App!
Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Just because you organize your taxi service over the internet doesn't mean your exempt for all other laws, regulations, or requirements for a taxi service. This applies to every other dot com whose business model is basically "Do a business that has been around for decades, but using the internet!" AirBNB? You need to follow the same rules as any other room rental agency. Amazon? People buying things over the internet still need to pay sales tax. Backpage.com? Soliciting prostitution is still soliciting prostitution.
Didn't you get the memo? We're in a post-reality world now.
Re: (Score:2)
software patents all over again (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with boosting e-commerce and startup culture.
This "we are an app company" is just like the software patent fiasco. Take a well-known process, add "with a computer" to it and file for a patent.
This is the same. Take an existing industry, add "with an app" to it - and pretend that everything that is true about that industry doesn't apply to you, because you are something completely new and different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure to call it "Foodr" or you can't play with the cool boys.
(sorry, the domain is already gone. Maybe "Eatr"? It's for sale)
What about prostitution? (Score:3)
They lie (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Government LUDDITES STOMP on app appers who make apps! The overweening government can't app apps. Only the app appers can app apps!
Apps!
Re: Government is overweening when (Score:1)
I don't care about innovation. It does not bother me. Dogs, they bother me. They bark and bite. So I don't know about the government, but when I see dogs, I STOMP on them. I stomp on chihuahuas and I stomp on dobermanns. I stomp them flat. Stomp stomp stomp.